The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrganizedWisdom[edit]

OrganizedWisdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Deleted via prod and then contested at DRV. The cited sources are primarily incidental mentions which don't provide enough material to write a substantial article. Has not been shown to meet WP:WEB criteria. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The more recent citations, in particular, are substantive, with the Salon article referring to this site as a solution to a significant problem experienced by people seeking health information online. Patriciajane (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia, all your contributions at wikipedia have been to add links to organizedwisdom, contest its deletion or to alter the article itself. What is your connection to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd better logged in fast--NAHID 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources have the site as the main subject of the article. Does not meet WP:WEB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, it apparently failed WP:WEB--NAHID 08:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.